|
|
Our
examination of the tradition of Islamic philosophy is going to be relatively
limited. Indeed, we are only going to read a little bit of two
“philosophers” –al-Ghazali (1058-1111ce) and Ibn Rushd (1126-1198ce).
Given the relatively narrow focus of our examination, and our inability to spend
any significant amount of time struggling through the early development of the
philosophical/intellectual traditions of which these two thinkers form a part,
we must bear in mind that Islamic intellectual culture provides a wealth of
material for examination and reflection. Further, it is important to keep in
mind that both al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd considered themselves to be devote
Muslims, and hence whatever their work may owe to their reading and
transformation of the Hellenistic intellectual tradition (and the intellectual
traditions of India) their primary point of reference is the religion of Islam. There
are two broad points of interest here in these readings. First, what is the
relation between philosophy and religion? To consider this question we must also
ask what is philosophy as a “way of knowing” or “living” and what are
the limits of philosophy? Is it proper to conflate the limits of reason with the
limits of philosophy? Is revelatory knowledge outside of the scope of rational
discourse, and if so, then what relation do they bear to one another (is one
subordinate or founded on the other)? How do we discover the limits of rational
discourse? How do we “test” revelation? (Or is this an inappropriate
question?) Second, what are the major points of contention in this discourse? We
already see one –the relation between philosophy and religion, but what are
the others? How are these questions related to the basic structure of Islamic
“orthodoxy” (and what is this?) and do they bear any relation to the primary
questions of Christian philosophy? So, these are some things to keep in mind as
you read this material. Below, you will find some more specific questions to
help guide your reading and some prompts for journal entries. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali
We
will be reading two texts by al-Ghazali. The first is known as the Munkidh
min al-Dalal (Deliverance from Error) and can be found at http://www.ghazali.org/books/md/gz101.htm
through the Islamic Philosophy Online (http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/)
--a wonderful source of works, though most remain in Arabic, which is a language
I have yet to learn. We will also be reading selections from the Tahafut al
Falasifa (The Incoherence of the Philosophers). However, as there is no
English translation of this online, as of yet, we will be reading those
selections at the same time that we read ibn Rushd’s response in his Tahafut
al Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence). In the Tahafut al
Tahafut ibn Rushd quotes al-Ghazali at length and then attempts to rebut his
arguments. We will be concerned with the first discussion under the heading
“On the Natural Sciences” which deals with the question of causation. It is
entitled: “the denial of a logical necessity between cause and effect.” When
you are reading this, you must make sure that you separate out the passages by
Ghazali and those by Rushd. You can find the complete text of the Tahafut al
Tahafut at http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/default.htm.
The discussion we want is one of the last four. Of course, the more you read,
the better off you are, so if you want to read more of this text or any other
you can find in translation (or if you read Arabic), then I highly recommend it. Minkidh
min al-Dalal. This
work is something of an intellectual biography in which al-Ghazali works through
his history and explains how he came to hold the particular position he did with
respect to the Muslim intellectual tradition. It is useful in part because it
gives us some sense of the content of that tradition –that is, what were the
major trends, as well as his assessment of their relative merits. So, as you are
reading this, keep the following questions in mind. (Note: these questions serve
to help you identify important things you should know as well as to attempt to
stimulate your thinking about this material.)
(Journal
Prompt) Consider the path that al-Ghazali takes in his intellectual and
spiritual development –does it mirror at all your path? Does his approach and
method of self-examination appear to work? What do you think would happen if you
engaged in a similar self-examination? Or, alternatively, do you think that his
examination went far enough? Does he ever significantly question the religious
faith that he has or his experiences of revelation? What does this tell us about
the human condition? Is revelation (or inspiration or the grace of God) the only
thing that can over come our uncertainty and “rudderlessness” in the world? Tahafut al-Falasifa Remember,
that you are reading here quotes from the text arranged by ibn Rushd.
Nonetheless, I will treat them separately. Al-Ghazali’s main point in his text
is to show two things: 1) that philosophy is irreligious –that is leads to sin
and infidelity to God; and 2) that philosophy cannot guarantee the certainty or
truth of its conclusions at all –and hence, has nothing whatsoever to
recommend it.
Abu’l Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd Ibn
Rushd lived in Andalusia (what we know as Spain) about a century or so after al-Ghazali.
He was a central figure in the “Aristotelian Renaissance” that swept through
Christian Europe about a century or so later. He was also a strident opponent of
al-Ghazali. We will be reading three works by ibn Rushd. The first is The
Decisive Treatise that is in your textbook (241-260). The second is On
the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy. This can be found at http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/art/ir100.htm.
These two works bear a strong resemblance to one another (insofar as they treat
of very similar issues) but seem to approach the topic from slightly different
perspectives. Finally, we will want to consider ibn Rushd’s responses to al-Ghazali
in the Tahafut al Tahafut (see above for reference). The Decisive Treatise
On the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy
–this text is often (?) an appendix to the Decisive Treatise.
Tahafut al Tahafut
|